JW Patterson HS Invitational
2024 — Oklahoma City, OK/US
Novice Policy Debate Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HideHello Debaters!
I am a high schooler in the class of '25, but I've been debating since 2019.
GENERAL/SHORT VERSION:
If something is dropped, point it out to me, I will not do your work for you.
Docs: I prefer a Microsoft Doc, but Google Docs are okay. Send the docs through an email chain (abrown25@heritagehall.com is the email you should use for me!) or SpeechDrop.
PLEASE BE KIND TO YOUR PARTNER AND THE OTHER TEAM IN ROUND.
Speed: I'm okay with speed, but clarity is everything to me, so please be clear!
Analytics: Always make analytics, but if they are not on the sent doc, please tell me when you are going on to them! (E.X. Next - Analytics)
If you take too long to download or share a Doc, I will start your prep time. I will give a warning before I start it. If you are having technical difficulties, communicate that with me and I will assist as best I can.
Please face the judge in CX and make eye contact during the rebuttals. This goes a long way toward making your arguments more persuasive and will earn you speaker points in round!!
CASE DEBATE: I think case debate is great, and is often underused on both sides! With case, I look for quality over quantity of evidence. Explain to me why your evidence is better!
NEG:
K's: I love a good K, but if I don't understand it, I won't vote for a K I don't understand. Make sure not to fall behind/concede F/W!
T: I will vote for T if it is properly extended, but you must have a clear violation and impact/voting issue.
Theory: I will vote on any decent theory, but again, extend it and have a clear impact/voting issue.
DA/CPs: I will vote for any DA/CP I feel is fair, but I need to understand how they work in order to vote for them!
AFF:
AFF Cases: I will vote on any fair AFF case with properly extended impacts AND solvency. I prefer plans, and if you don't have a plan, you will need to focus on impacts/solvency (if any) and why those outweigh neg impx.
AFF, if the Neg team is being unfair, call them out on it! I will vote on unfairness, but again, I need to understand what the Neg team is abusing, and the voting issues. For me to vote, this needs to be a large part, (3ish minutes) of your final speeches for me to vote, though if the Neg concedes this, I will vote.
I know debate is stressful, but have fun, it's a game!
Email Chain:
okpolicydebate@googlegroups.com
realartistsofguantanamobay@googlegroups.com
Me:
Jenks High School debater (current Junior!)
49th at 23-24 NSDA Nationals in CX debate
1st at 23-24 OSSAA State in FEX / IX
3rd at 23-24 OSSAA State in CX debate
For all styles of debate: tech over truth
CX 23-24:
Any speed is fine
Neg -
Ks: I love K's, critical debate, etc. Give me a story on the K and paint your alt as the heroic savior. If you call your opponent out on rhetoric they use and it's SUBSTANTIALLY harmful I will vote on that if it lands in the final speech. Anything performative is ok in my eyes, just nothing that veers into the lanes of disrespect against your opponent (i.e referring to them with derogatory terms). In terms of alts pretty standard, silly epistemological args are fun. Tell me what the AFF assumes or creates + why that's bad. If your K doesn't have an alt I'm kinda iffy on if there's a clear reason to vote for you, as I tend to agree w/ the notion that the straight pessimism in the form of a K is only really balanced out by its alt.
CPs: Any CP is fine, advantage, pic, I don't mind. I will say that I do honestly think that textual competitiveness is a little silly, so if the clash is really strong on both sides I may end up leaning towards AFF interps. Imo generating offense from technicalities in the wording of a resolution or plan text is a high risk low reward strat, so if you are doing it prob come with another position to fall back on with condo (and pray you win the condo debate lol).
Theory: Theory is probably one of the areas I tend to lean truth over tech, but not in a substantive way, just that if both sides of clash are good I'll typically default to the argument that has the most sensible basing. For example if a NEG is running like 25 off and the other team calls out abuse I'll probably side with the AFF lol, however just like anything else, if your opponent drops it, then I evaluate it as true in the round.
DAs: I want to hear a clear narrative of the DA, if your later speeches just say "extend this" "they concede this" but don't tell me what I'm extending or give me a line of reasoning that's not going in depth on the flow. Just saying they dropped something doesn't remind me of the impact that carries.
Aff -
Past the 1AC I look for good extensions and args. Make sure you're providing counter interps and rebutting EVERYTHING the neg says otherwise you risk dropping some super specific internal link, which could cost you the round. I want to hear good counter interps. Feel free to throw in theory too. The 1AR is one of my favorite speeches in the round when done right, not too little not too much, sets the tone for the rest of the round.
LD 23-24:
Most of policy is consistent on here ^
I love LD debate, it doesn't have to be solely body counts though. On impact framing tell me what magnitude I should care about? Suffering? Extinction? I want you to write the standards of my ballot and let the argumentation on the flow fill in the rest.
On val / crit make sure they're consistent, and I love seeing thematic intertwining of your values into later speeches. Also don't get so lost in saying "they dropped x" that you forget to restate what 'x' even was.
PF 23-24:
Everything above is consistent ^^
I'm mainly looking at the flow here and what not
Speaker Points:
A few things that check boxes for me:
Enunciation, clarity, volume, posture, eye-contact (not necessarily in constructives), confidence, respect
I'm not going crazy on speaker points but the better you are at speech the easier it will be for me to digest your arguments, if you give me a great point but it's poorly represented it might get lost on the flow.
IEs:
I'm probably the least biased judge when it comes to IE events, I am receptive to any topic regardless of how sensitive it is and I love to see passion. The main thing I'm looking for in a performance is intentionality in conjunction with quality. Overall judging an IE is a pretty broad thing, but always perform with the mindset that you can win and it will reflect in your ballot!
They/Them. You can refer to me as Bailey or Baikey.
BTW I do not shake hands :D I forgot that was a norm in debate.
I debated at Lansing High school for four years. I am at my second semester debating for KCKCC. In high school I only did lay debate, but in college I do IPDA, Parli, and LD (all still pretty chill formats).
Speed: I am very new to speed as I had never really done it in high school. I can keep up for the most part but I will clear you if needed. Do not go super sonic though, I apologize for my lack of experience in this aspect. I really value my flow so being able to know what's happening in the debate for me is awesome. I also do expect y'all to be sign posting, I see no reason with y'all having cards to not be sign posting. It also just makes your speech sound cleaner for me.
Ks: I am not super new in Ks but not super seasoned either but I really love them! When running them I do think that the framework debate is rather important. Feel free to run them though! On top of that I feel like the framework is super important and would like that to be touched upon. If you are running a new K in front of me just be able to explain it well. You should be able to tell if I am confused.
T: make it make sense, I think going for T is a a good strat. Although if you decide to go for it commit to it fully!
CP: Run them if you like!
Das: Run them, I like them.
At the end of the day run what you like I don’t care. Only things I won’t vote on are: Zionism good, racism good, and homophobia good. If you run something that I find that I don’t want to vote on I will for this round, but will add it to this list later on.
#1 thing is don't be mean . I will comment on it and it will change my view on you if you are being for real evil.
Run whatever you like at the end of the day and try your best!
Make a one piece reference and I’ll give good speaks. If both teams do it I’ll put in my true thoughts on that!
bailey.debate18@gmail.com
currently debating for LRCH
she/her
add me to the email chain --> caitjeancheng@gmail.com
- Be respectful! - I understand standing on business, but that's no excuse to be outright mean. This will dock your speaks.
- I will not tolerate any sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, or anything harmful/violent
- Speaking - Please be clear when speaking! Clarity is the goal when you are reading your arguments. I should be able to understand and clearly hear your taglines. Signpost all the time!
- Judge Instruction- I should be able to know why I am voting for you, explicitly. Tell me why I should vote for you. Especially in the 2NR/2AR. My RFD should be able to have specific reasons and "quotes" of why I voted for you. Explain your arguments and be organized. (line by line is a big plus especially for novices.)
- additionally I am not the most familiar with the novice 24-25 packet (i know the basic arguments) SO PLEASE express your arguments and break them down!
- KEEP TRACK OF YOUR PREP TIME! - I will not be keeping track of your prep time, cross x, etc - so PLEASE keep track! and do NOT CHEAT prep time. I will call you out.
others:
- You can call me Caitlin or Judge
- I will vote on basically anything (I obviously like/dislike some arguments - doesn't mean I won't vote on it - especially if you have argued them well)
- The most important things about debate (novices) are to have fun and learn. Please ask me questions after the round if you have any.
good luck :)
✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊
Hi, I'm Gwendolyn Cole (she/they) I am a senior-year policy debater. I am a 2x national qualifier ( world schools in '23 and policy in '24) I have also placed at state, districts, regionals, and many other in-season tournaments in policy debate. I have multiple years of debate and speech experience across many events (policy, public forum, congressional debate, world schools debate, United States extemp, informative speaking, among others) so I feel pretty well versed in the speech and debate world. Any questions not answered in my paradigm I will happily answer before the round begins.
✿ No, I don't care where you sit or how we disclose or whether or not cross is open or closed
✿ I have no problem with spectators but I do not want them on the email chain/speech drop - if you are really watching the round for educational purposes it is best to train yourself to flow by ear
✿ Email:GwenCole802@gmail.com
✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊
How I Evaluate a Policy Debate:
❀ Speed: I'm a policy debater at heart; you're the one competing; you make the call on how fast or slow you want to go. I don't care as long as you are clear—mumbling is not spreading—make sure a document is shared so I can follow. If you are unclear or I can't hear you I'll say clear and stop flowing until I can hear you. Signpost always!
❀ Topicality: I will only vote on T if it's the only thing the negative runs or if they collapse on it in the 2NR . I truly believe that it's impossible to claim to lose ground if you're running any other off-case positions, cases, kritiks, etc. Prove to me you have no ground—collapse on T or don't run it. I won't necessarily vote neg down if they run T with other arguments and off-case positions I just won't evaluate it.
❀ DA's - The more specific the DA link is the more likely I am to buy it; the only time I'm voting solely on a vague link is when it gets dropped. If your uniqueness is two or more years old you shouldn't be running the disadvantage.
❀ CP - Advantage counterplans are my personal favorite but as long as you prove that it's competitive... it's competitive. That being said I will totally buy Perms if the neg is unable to prove competition. I don't necessarily believe that counterplans must be non-topical unless the aff raises that issue and gives me voters on it.
❀ Kritiks- I think K's are really great when run properly. In my eyes that means that you have a sustained framework through the debate—I think it's nearly the biggest piece to a Kritik. Tell me about the theory of power; tell me why it matters to change that. I won't buy alts that aren't material or don't have mindset implications just telling me that the alt is "vote neg" and is verging on gross—it cheapens whatever advocacy or critique you claim to attempt at—tell me why, tell me how that changes the world either in the debate round/sphere or outside of it. Same as DA's more specific links are always better. I have a special place in my heart for Set Col and AfroPess, but feel free to run Baudrillard for all I care.
❀ In Round Behavior Couple of things here that I think need to be noted. First and foremost, I have nothing against a little bit of sass, It is good to be confident in yourself but being rude to your opponent doesn't make you a better debater; disrespect will lose speaker points if it becomes egregious. When it comes to CX, I have no preference for open or closed, but I will say that if your partner has to answer all your questions, I will drop your speaker points. I understand that each individual has their niche, but it does not make you a better debater to not be confident in your own case. Lastly, Bigoted arguments will never win my ballot—you'll lose the round and be left with zero speaks to show for it; don't be sexist, racist, homophobic, xenophobic, etc.
❀ Little Things-
✿ My timer is always better than yours; prep stealing is gross; don't do it; if I think you're prepping, I'll start your prep. I won't make you start prep to disclose your documents, though, dw.
✿ I'm flowing, I'm reading your cards, and I have no issue calling for evidence checks.
✿ The organization helps you win! signpost always, number your case attacks, and make sure I know where you are on the flow
✿ Past the first constructive speeches, clash is more important to me - cards are fine but do the work and engage with the actual debate.
✿ I'm not the one debating; I won't shadow or extend for anyone; do the work and extend your case.
✿ Dropped arguments are true
✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊
How I Evaluate a Public Forum Round
❀ Definition Debate: Please make sure there is a clash on this front of the debate—please don't just read your definitions and tell me the opposing team is wrong; tell me why, and tell me how your definition is better.
❀ Clash: Awall of cards is not debating; give me a real clash; tell me why you can or can't support the resolution, give me the impacts of your examples/scenarios.
❀ Organization: Being anorganized team helps you win! Signposting and giving off time road maps are always good ideas.
❀ Prep Time/Speech Time -My phone will always time better than yours - the second the questions start in cross I'm starting time - please save clarity questions for cx itself.
✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊
How I evaluate a Lincoln‐Douglas debate round
✿ I have never debated an LD round, that being said I am very familiar with framework debate (see policy paradigm above) and fond of FW debate so you should be fine. I stay up to date on the literature and will always work to understand you.
✿ I'm as progressive or traditional as you are debating I don't care
❀ Kritiks - I love them but please see my policy paradigm above, framework is the biggest thing on the K, as are material or mindset alts - "vote neg" without mindset implications is disgusting, especially on advocacy K's.
✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊ ⊹✿⋆.˚⋆₊
My email is carolynsearscook@gmail.com carolyncook@smsd.org and I think it would be awesome for you all to start the email chain before I get to the debate so that we don't have to waste time doing it once I arrive:)
I debated in high school in Kansas from 1999-2003 (SME). I coached high school debate throughout college but did not debate in college. I was the director of debate at Lansing High School where I coached and taught from 2009-2018. This (23-24) is my 6th year directing and teaching speech & debate at Shawnee Mission South.
I dislike when debaters are mean. This activity is awesome--I believe that it pushes us and makes us better thinkers and people--and debaters cheapen that opportunity when we choose not to respect one another. Please just be kind humans.
I learned to debate and evaluate debates as a policy maker but also find that I much prefer seeing you do what you do best in rounds. That being said, you know your lit and arguments better than I do (at least you should). So:
- If you don't think the aff should get to weigh their 1AC against the criticism, you have to tell me why--same if you think that we should abandon the topic as the aff.
- If you want me to evaluate an argument and your 'warrant' is described as a specific term: that one word is not a warrant. . . you should include a description of WHY your claim is true/accurate/means you win. Debates that are heavily reliant on jargon that I am unfamiliar with will result in me being confused.
- If you do little work on literature (especially lit I am not familiar with), please don't then expect me to do a bunch of work for you in the decision.
You should clearly articulate the arguments you want to forward in the debate--I value persuasion as an important part of this activity.
Please be organized--doing so allows me to focus on the quality of argumentation in the round. Debates are so much more fun to watch when you have a strategic approach that you execute with care. Talk about your evidence. Warranted and strategic analysis that demonstrates your understanding of your own arguments, and their interactions with your opponent's, make debates better.
I default competing interpretations on Topicality and think T debates should include case lists and topical version of the aff. I think that weighing impacts is important. I also just enjoy good case debate. I tend to find consult and and condition CPs to be cheating...but you still have to answer them. You should always answer conditionality.
I really prefer that you are as explicit about HOW you would like for me to evaluate the debate and WHY this approach is best.
Please speak clearly... if you are incomprehensible my flow will not be great and the quality of my evaluation of the round will likely decrease.
email chains - evanderdavis6@gmail.com
Assistant for Washburn Rural
Competed @ Washburn Rural - '19-'23
I'm fine with speed though in my experience debaters often benefit from slowing down and speaking more efficiently. SLOW DOWN on your theory blocks. I need pen time and I promise you your theory blocks are not as easy to flow as you think they are. Signpost! I will clear you if necessary.
Truth informs tech (it is a tiebreaker), but tech > truth.
I generally default to reject the arg, not the team (condo being the exception).
Case
Case is undercovered. Impact turns, clash, evidence comparison, rehighlightings, etc are great.
Intelligent debate is valued. A quality logical argument with clear warrants can be worth just as much as a card.
DAs
DAs are good. I like policy-type debates and DAs are a big part of that. Specific links are best, and make a debate much more interesting. Don't neglect impact calc or be afraid to do analysis about the weakness of an internal link chain.
CPs
Condo is good. I will vote on condo bad, but find myself voting neg very frequently unless they chronically under covered the arg.
I think judge kick is pretty lazy and will not default to it. If you tell me to and the aff doesn't contest it though, I will.
T
T debates are fine. It's annoying when you read a bunch of throw-away T args in the 1NC, but you do you. Reasonability is a decent arg, but you can't just say "reasonability" - tell me why your definition is good/real world.
Ks
I used to hate Ks. I don't anymore, but it probably isn't the best idea to read one in front of me.
Kritiks should have an alt to generate uniqueness. If you kick the alt you should probably lose to a no uniqueness argument most of the time. It's possible to win, but much more difficult.
You need to prove alt solvency. You should actually explain what the alt does instead of repeating the same canned phrase 100 times. I am not all that familiar with a lot of the literature, so make sure to actually explain.
If you want to read a K in front of me, I'd recommend kritiks of the case. I'm happy to listen to the frameworks on those and while I don't think they're true, tech > truth. You will have an uphill battle reading pure reps Ks or kritiks of debate in front of me.
K/planless affs are probably cheating. I will do my best to evaluate these debates fairly, but know I'm biased.
CX
Open CX is fine, but should be limited. Prompt, don't ask questions for your partner.
Speaker Points
I will boost your speaks by 0.1 points each for sending speech docs as you stop prep time (not after) and for giving 2NR/2AR without a computer.
Other
Things that are good:
Judge instructions, impact calc, evidence comparison, etc. Your job is to do as much of my job for me as possible - that's the best way to ensure you get a positive result.
Things that are bad:
Running args you don't understand, unnecessary rudeness, bigotry, death good.
I will do my best to evaluate the round without bias. I think I've typed out above pretty much all of my biases in evaluating debates. None of these are totally insurmountable, but you should adapt to your judge. Debate is an educational activity and as a judge, my role is to allow for experimentation and reward the team that made the better arguments.
currently debating for little rock central
add me to the email chain amolkattariamac@icloud.com
he/him
- please be clear, i want to understand your arguments and speed alone won't get you higher speaks, and also im never gonna say clear in a round.
- at least try to have fun when debating, at the end of the day it's never that serious, i understand policy debate gets heated but any over the top aggression or in round violence to your opponents is an automatic loss in my books
- i will be keeping time always, but just in case always have your own timer for your speeches.
- i'll always prefer some good line by line over a card
- do judge instruction, thats a big thing and it'll help me understand your key points better
- this should go without saying, dont say or do anything remotely racist, homophobic, sexist, etc, thats an easy way for you to go straight to the lowest possible speaks and lose the round immediately.
- bring me food i will give u +0.5 speaks
4 years of debate (KDC) at Lansing High (2017-2021)
KCKCC Debate (NPDA/NFA LD) (2021–2024)
Assistant Coaching at Olathe North, KCKCC (2024– current)
Formerly assistant coaching at Lansing (2021–2024)
I'm down for speech drop or email whichever works best for you. christopherlapeedebate@gmail.com
TLDR: I've learned that as I judge more the more I realize I don't particularly care for certain arguments over others. Rather, I care more about debaters doing what they're good at and maximizing their talents. Granted to whereas I'm ok with you reading whatever, do keep in mind that the experience I've had with debate/arguments might not make me the best decision maker in the back of the room for that round. So if you get me in the back of the room read what you want but be mindful it might need a little explanation in the Rebuttals.
Speed–I'm cool with it if I can't keep up i'll say speed if you arent clear i'll say clear. People never slow down on analytics so imma just start clearing folks if I cant understand what your saying without the doc. This will allow me to keep up better. If you ignore my speed/clear signals I'm gonna be bound to miss stuff so if you get an rfd you don't like after the round thats prolly why.
LD– All of the stuff below applies if you wanna read a plan and have a policy debate do it idc its your debate have fun!
More in depth version of how I evaluate
Top level:I default tech over truth. The only time I'll use truth as a means of decision making is to break a tie in an argument which usually will only happen if the debate is very messy.
T: On T I'll default to competing Interps unless I get a good reason to favor reasonability or if reasonability goes conceded. I think T is a debate about models of a hypothetical community agreement to what the the topic should look like, in this I think the debate comes down to the internal links like who controls limits and ground and who's limits/ground is best for education and fairness. I don't think you need proven abuse but if there is you should point that out.
CP: I think CP's can be a good test of solvency mechanisms of the aff I wont vote on a cp unless it has a net benefit. I think the CP is a reason why 1% risk of the DA means I should probably vote neg if the CP solves, even if case outweighs. I don't think the CP alone is a reason to vote neg, just because there is another way to solve the aff doesn't mean I shouldn't give it a try. Internal net benefits are real and I'll vote on a CP with one.
Condo: I tend to think condo is good unless the neg is just trying to time suck by reading like 5 CP's and then just going for whichever you cant get to in time
DA's: I have quite a bit of experience with these but not a lot to say on them, I think a DA being non uq means no risk. I think no Link means the same, I think the I/L strat is commonly underrated if the link doesn't actually trigger the mpx then there is probably no risk, MPX turning a DA is underrated too. If you go for the DA in front of me focus on the story of the DA and form a coherent story and focus on the internals if I understand how the plan actually causes the MPX I'm more likely to vote for the DA.
Spec: If you go for spec go for it just like you would T. I'll listen to 5 mins of spec and vote on it. Same thing as T I view it as a models debate and you should focus on the internals because that tends to show who actually controls the mpx debate.
The K: On the link level first. I think the links to the k page operate in the same way as links to the Disad. What I mean by this is that the more specific the better. Just vaguely describing "the apocalyptic rhetoric of the 1ac" seems like a very generic link which is prolly not that hard for a turn and or no link argument.
On the impact debate. I think you need to be weighing the impact of the kritik in the round I find that a lot of debaters get jumbled up in line by line and forget to actually weigh the impact. Just extending it and saying "they cause xyz" isn't good because it isn't developed and lacks the warranting of why that matters and why I should vote neg because they cause that.
On the alt debate. It's a common stereotype of K debaters that we can't explain the alt. What does the alt look like? Why is that good? And so on so forth. I think that while I hate this stereotype I dislike even more that in the rounds I've watched debaters have tended to just read their tag line of the alt solvency and the alt whenever asked in cx what does the alt look like, and or do that to extend the alt in later speeches. This is not a good way to debate and doesn't help you convince anyone your alt is good, you should be able to articulate the method of your alt whatever that may be and how that changes the debate space or the world. I don't think this means you need to be able to tell me exactly what goes on at every waking point of the day.
K aff:
On the case debate– I think k affs should link to the topic/debate in some way shape or form otherwise they feel very generic. specificity >>>>>>>> generics (on every arg tho). There should be a clear impact/impacts to the aff. I think where the aff falls short is in the method/advocacy debate I think that I should be able to understand the method and how it is able to resolve the impact in some way shape or form. I think the rob/roj should be clearly identified (the earlier in the round the better). That way I understand how I should evaluate the rest of the debate and process through things (I think in close debates both teams wind up winning different parts of the flow, I need to understand why your flow comes first). I think that performance K affs lose the performance aspect which sucks, I think that applying the performance throughout the rest of the debate is >>>>>> rather than losing it after the 1ac.
V FW– I tend to think debate is a game that shapes subjectivity – Ie y'all wanna win rounds and fairness is good, and also the arguments we make/debate shapes who we become as advocates. I will technically sway based off args made in the round (ie debate doesn't shape subjectivity/debate isn't a game) I think from the neg I need a clear interp with a brightline for what affs are and are not topical extended throughout the debate. I need a clear violation extended throughout the debate. I think standards act as internal links to the impacts of fairness and education. I think you should be able to win that your fairness is better than the affs fairness and that it outweighs their education. for the aff I also think you need a clear interp for what affs are and are not allowed under your model of debate extended throughout the debate. If you go for a we meet I think that the we meet should be clear and makes sense and also be throughout the debate. I think the aff should win that the TVA doesn't resolve your offense/education, that your fairness is just as good or better than the neg's model of fairness. And that your education outweighs. I think top level impact turns to t/fw are good. And use the rob/roj against the T debate (remember it all comes down to filtering what arguments are most important and come first)
KvK– uhhhhhhh I tend to get a little lost in these debates sometimes tbh bc I think its tough to evaluate and weigh two methods against each other especially if they aren't necessarily competitive with each other. I think in these debate the fw debate including the rob/roj is most important, and judge instruction is likely how you'd pick me up if I'm in the back of the room. If you don't tell me how to evaluate arguments and what they mean in context to the round we'll all prolly wind up frustrated at the end of the round bc I'll intervene or make a bad choice. (I'm not perfect and make mistakes so judge instruction is crucial to make sure I don't make them)
Current Head Forensics, Assistant Debate Coach at Olathe North High School in Kansas, Previously Head Coach at Lansing 2018-2024 (mixed style debate 5A school), and Buhler High School 2015-2018 (traditional-style debate 4A school). I judge rounds regularly, and have for the last 15+ years.
I did not debate in High School or College but DID participate in Forensics @ the high school level at Eudora High and at the collegiate level at Northwest Missouri State University.
Interp / PA: I don't think you should change you performance based on your audience, HOWEVER, I have lived experience that makes it REALLY hard to stay with you if you mention harm to children. It will go better for both of us if you have a content warning for me. I do not need you to tell me anything explicit, I wont need to excuse myself from the round, but if I know its there its easier to listen to you and give you feedback.
General Debate Things
Speed - clarity is important, I'm more on the slow end of fast debate. Add me to the email chain and put your analytics in the docs and I can usually keep up ok. If you don't add your analytics to the doc, and I miss them on my flow that becomes a problem for you. larissa.maranell@usd469.net
FYI: I have a degree in Biology, this is included b/c my threshold for answering crap science args is low. I'm not gonna do the work for the opponent but they wont need to do much. Also bad logic hurts your ethos.
Debater Behavior: there is no good reason for any debater behavior that causes exclusion in the space. Debate should be a polite exchange. FROM MY DEBATE SYLLABUS: "As debaters we often implement multiple varieties of viewpoints and voices in order to make an argument. What is not acceptable at any point includes slurs or attacks intended to degrade others on the basis of gender, race, sexual preference, sexual identity; this list may not include all possibilities. We attack arguments, not people, in debate." I remove travel privileges from my teams engaging in this behavior, and if it happens in the scope of the round I am judging the offending team will receive the loss AND have a sportsmanship grievance to contend with.
Arguments vs Delivery:I will judge the round based on the division it is in. If we are at a KDC flagged event and you are spreading my threshold for an abuse argument is gonna be in the basement.
In Policy Rounds -
I am pretty Tabula Rasa but default to a flow policymaker with a high regard for stock issues if no one tells me how/why to vote.
Kritiks: I enjoy them but you have to make sure it makes actual sense, If you cant make sure your opponent understands the K its not productive to the round, to you, or to anyone. You also need to explain the logic of the K for me to vote on it. (TLDR- don't be lazy and I will weigh it)
I love a good T debate :) - IMPORTANT EXCLUSION - Ablest T arguments are NOT acceptable and will be voted down - Example: if your T argument is premised off of a typo in the AFF teams document (could be due to an intellectual disability) rather than what the words of the actual resolution are.
In LD Rounds -
Value and Value Criterion are not just buzzwords, they are central to the LD form of debate, if you read them just to move on to your policy framework that isn't the point. I realize this makes me a traditionalist.
In PFD Rounds -
PFD is not Policy. There should not be a plan text. This was intended to be whole-res debate.
Make sure you give me framework in the 1st speech, Judge instruction is key.
Please add me to the email chain: rosematheny317@gmail.com
Little Rock Central Debate
She/Her
Important stuff:
-Any homophobia, racism, etc. will not be tolerated whatsoever. Just be nice in general too.
-BE CLEAR, especially on tag lines, I should be able to flow without looking at the doc.
-Give an order before you start speaking.
-I will have a timer but you should time yourself.
-JUDGE INSTRUCTION!! tell me exactly why you are winning.
-Call me Rose not judge.
Disclaimer:I am not that knowledgable on the novice packet. Make sure to have good overviews and articulate your arguments well in cx and rebuttles.
Overall, have fun, and don't take yourself too seriously. If you are a novice, you are still learning, so have fun with it! If you have any questions please ask them when I'm giving my rfd ill try my best to answer them.
Policy Paradigm -
TLDR: please put me on the email chain, give good clash and good impact calc. (and see bottom bolded section)
I did 4 years policy and 2 years of pfd in central Kansas 2014-2018. Went to nats in OO and PFD.
I’m pretty open to listening to most arguments, but haven’t heard a lot of the tech-y stuff before. I would love to learn more about the tech side of debate. Run your cool arguments in round, just explain them to me.
I will be flowing. I would prefer moderate speed (nothing super super fast please), give me pen time. Please extend your arguments. If you have an email chain I would love to be on it to follow along.allysonregehr@gmail.com
I generally have not done much, if any, prior topic research aside from listening to rounds. Explain your arguments and why they are important. Good debate stems from you being able to hold your ground and explain/examine. (Also please tell me what any acronyms used stand for)
Most of all debate is meant to be educational. If I feel like you are taking away from the educational factor of debate I will vote you down. There is no place to be rude, belittle, or demeaning in any way to your opponents, your judges, your teammates, etc in this round today.
email: roshansaha27@casady.org
Emma Schroeder
Washburn Rural High School ’20
I am now a social studies teacher and assistant debate coach at Washburn Rural
Put me on the email chain - ekathschroeder@gmail.com
TLDR - I am most comfortable in a policy-orientated debate. If you want to go for anything different, be ready to over-explain. Be nice, be smart, be clear and we should have a good time
----------
Top Level
You should know that even though I am an assistant coach, I haven't actually researched a debate topic since I was in high school. If I look confused you need to warrant things out more. Please don't make me google
Please. Do. Judge Instruction. If your rebuttal doesn't make some sort of claim like "if we win x argument we win the debate" then you have not done your rebuttal correctly
Tech v truth - Evidence quality and credibility is very important, and I will reward you for good research and for being ahead on the flow. But! Every argument needs a claim, warrant, and impact. Your “card” doesn’t count as tech if it’s unintelligibly highlighted. I think people need to stop assuming that terrible arguments necessitate a response. I have a lot of respect for 2ACs that *correctly* identify a nonsense arg, make a handful of smart analytics, and move on
Speed - Stop screaming into your laptops. Dear god. I usually flow on paper. I promise you I can flow, but if you don't explain your argument out long enough for me to physically move my pen then it probably isn't a real argument anyway.Topicality, framework, and other theory blocks need to be slowed down. I often have very physical signs of agreement or confusion with arguments. If you cannot slow down enough to look for these signs while speaking then why are you in a communication activity? Stop sacrificing line by line for reading blocks. It's soooo boring to judge and I promise you that you sound better when you are not just robotically reading
Bigotry in any way will not be tolerated. If it becomes an issue in round, it will result in a loss
----------
Things I like - 8 min of case in the 2NC, no laptops in the 2NR/2AR, impact calc, ballot framing, baller cross-ex strategies, unabashedly slow yet efficient debaters, persuasion, rehighlighted evidence, debaters who are funny/having a good time
Things I don’t like - general rudeness, 10 off in the 1NC (why do u need to do dis), stealing prep, clipping, death good, bad highlighting (see above rant), saying “X was conceded!!!” when it really wasn’t
----------
Case - **heart eyes emoji** The more case debate you do, the happier I become. Two good case cards > your extra shitty DA. I have never had the opportunity to vote on presumption but would absolutely love to. If you give me this opportunity I will gladly reward you, either with the ballot or with good speaks.
Counterplans - Will vote for conditions/consult/process/PICs but probably won’t be thrilled about it. Conditionality is probably good, but I get annoyed judging 9 off debates that suck when it could have been a 5 off debate that was good. I go back and forth about my philosophy regarding judge kick, so addressing it directly in the debate is safest for you. I would like a solvency advocate unless you’re getting incredibly creative. Will be responsive to theory if every solvency deficit is being fiated through. Delay = cheating.
Topicality - probably my favorite argument although it’s hard to do correctly. Debaters should think of T debates like they’re debating a DA. 1 standard = 1 DA. Pick one for the 2NR, otherwise there's too many moving parts and your impact won't be explained. It is rare to see a terminal impact explained to T, you should have one. It's try or die for *your impact* baby. Arguments should be framed in the context of what the current topic looks like and how it would change. In general: Precision > Limits > Ground > Topic Education. Also, if you put a 15 second ASPEC blip at the bottom of your T shell, there’s a 100% chance I will ignore it. Put it on a separate sheet.
Kritiks - If it tells you anything, when I was a senior I did not read a K in the 1NC a single time. But if you want to, go for it and be prepared to explain! There are so many moments when I judge K debates where I think to myself "I have 0 idea what this means" and its not that I don't understand what you're saying, it's that your speech does not go beyond the use of buzzwords. Using a big word is not and will never be a sufficient warrant. The FW and links 2NRs are most successful because alts are always bad imo. Unless you are very good I will probably weigh the aff. Saying fiat is illusory doesn’t mean anything to me. Long overviews are a sign that you’re not putting in enough effort to engage with the line-by-line.
Framework - I am a bad person to read a planless aff in front of. But if you must, I believe affs need to have some form of topic link. Fairness is the most persuasive impact to me. I don’t think going to the actual case page in the 2NR is always necessary, but the arguments need to be contextualized to the 1AC. Neg teams are generally good at talking about their impacts but need to do more work on the internal link level.
currently debating at casady school
pronouns: she/her
put me on the email chain! - rishikashah79@gmail.com
note: I am not very familiar with the 24-25 novice packet so pls articulate your arguments clearly. I have a basic understanding of these args, but show me you know what you are talking abt by breaking it down in your overviews, CX, etc.
speaking
- speak slower on tags/analytics so I can have pen time
- spreading is fine, but you need to slow down if what you are saying is incomprehensible, especially in card text.
- pls pls pls signpost!! it will make everything clearer for me to evaluate at the end of the round. also pls just try to keep speeches organized in general.
judge instruction
- it is important that in the 2nr/2ar, you give me specific reasons why I should vote for you AND tell me why those things are important. in other words, write my ballot for me (show what you are winning on, impact calc, ext args, etc.) this will make me more comfortable to vote for you.
random
- open/tag-team CX is fine, just don't steal your partner's time!
- I will have a timer, but you need to be timing as well!
- there will be no sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, etc. there is no reason to be rude in debate and this will severely dock speaks!
overall, do what you do and do it well. have fun!
Brock Spencer – brock.spencer.bs@gmail.com
Experience/Background - Current Assistant Coach @ Casady HS (OK) (7 Years), Judge Experience (10 years), Debated 1 year CEDA/NDT @ UCO , 4 years of National Circuit HS @ Tulsa-Union (Ok), Former Assistant Coach @ Tulsa-Union HS (Ok) (1 year)
TLDR – You do what you do best, and tell me what to do with my ballot as your judge. Write the RFD/ballot for me in the last speech. I’m down with voting for most things that have a well-warranted reason and impact behind it. Offense/Defense Paradigm. I flow meticulously and enjoy line by line debates. Debate can be super fun, enjoy yourselves!
Speaker Points - I tend to heavily reward teams who do phenomenal research/ utilize evidence in comparative ways. A newer development is that I tend to reward teams who flow well, and answer arguments on the line by line especially with numbered responses. Giving your last speech off of the flow, and not reading into a laptop is a great way to have good speaks - (Also just be nice to each other. It's a competitive activity, but doesn't have to be cutthroat.)
Speed -
Go for it! Please be somewhat clear, especially on tags.
(Policy Paradigm is 1st)
(LD Paradigm is 2nd)
(PF Paradigm is 3rd)
-- POLICY --
Policy AFFs --
Advantages are good....10 advantages are not.
I prefer few advantages w/ specific internal link chains that don't have 8 loosely tied together scenarios begging to lose to a security K. Update your IL UQ's - it goes a long way in front of me.
Utilize your AFF vs. off case args, too many policy affs lose because they start debating on the DA/K flow ignoring, and not using the AFF to it's potential.
K AFF’S –-
AFF’s I have read haven’t defended much so I’m definitely willing to vote for these.
The aff should still defend doing something, but this is a pretty low threshold.
Vs. K's go for perms and impact turns to Alts
Vs. FW go for DA's as impact turns.
Topicality/Theory –-
Topicality and Theory are drastically underutilized. Ya'll are letting these aff teams, and CP's get away with waaaay too much. I love creative Theory/T debates. Limits are love, limits are life!
I evaluate T similar to any DA flow from offense/defense point of view, and default competing interps, but can be swayed to vote for the aff being reasonable. I reward spec interps/violations vs. an aff.
Impact out your standards/counter standards, and make spec args as to things they did in the round that harmed ground, what they could have done based on their strat, or other potential abuse. RVIs are a non-starter, and I will evaluate "K's of T".
I will vote on Condo, but the 2ac needs to be more than 10 seconds if you're going to be going all in by the 1AR. I do think the Neg is allowed to be condo most of the time unless they have done something rather egregious that you point out.
Framework –-
Neg - I'll vote on both soft FW Interps that are creative and hard line USFG FW. Either way limits/predictable ground are most useful standards to win my ballot. Limits are love, limits are life! Point out when aff is vague/a moving target as another link to these standards. Topical Version of the AFF is the easiest way to win my ballot on FW. Typically don't vote on democratic engagement/deliberation args, but not against them.
K AFFs - make sure to leverage your impacts vs. FW. If a negative drops the AFF Impacts I’m easily swayed by the argument that AFF impacts are Impact turns to the interpretation, and why their model of education is bad to begin with.
CP –-
These should have a clear net benefit such as DA or internal net benefit. Better solvency isn’t sufficient. I often find myself voting on perms so these net benefits should be articulated as reasons why the perm doesn’t solve.
Also if you want me to kick it for you if you’re losing it that needs to be clear in the 2NR.
Cheating Cps *you know who you are* - I tend to side w/ the aff on these so you'll want to allocate sufficient time to theory in the block if necessary.
DA –-
DA's are great in debate as generics to rely on, but I'm not a fan of the trend of reading one to 2 card DA's with barely any warrants highlighted. I love a good da although. Specificity is lovely! I'll still vote for your generic topic DA, but apply it to the aff in the block.
Need clear impact calc from both the aff and the neg. - updated UQ/IL UQ will be rewarded w/ speaker points, and usually W's on the ballot!!
Both teams should use comparative analysis and explain why their ! ows, is more uq, or turns the other etc.
K’s –
Background/Preferences -
I’m most familiar with this type of debate throughout high school, and college. I "hack" for Security K's that are embedded in other K's - I find that most policy aff internal link chains are garbage, and you can make them defend things they don't want with security esque arguments. The K’s I’m most familiar with are the greatest hits of dead European dudes (Nietzsche, Baudrillard, Heidegger, Deleuze etc.), and being from Oklahoma I hear, and have read Settler Colonialism/Cap literature a lot. Personally believe the Fem I.R. K is drastically underutilized, but very good in debate because there's literature on everything and it's often just true.
Links/Alts -
For your link, QUOTE THE 1AC EV evidence as link analysis for a K.- You can read your "sick" Baudrillard 81 card, but in the block there should be an explanation of the link in the context of the 1AC ev and scenarios.Alts should have a clear articulation of why it solves the AFF and the links. I also find myself voting on perms b/c the neg doesn’t do a good job explaining the difference in the aff solvency and the K alt solvency world. To help beat perms the Links should be offensive – I typically won’t vote on a link of omission. An Alt should also exist. If you read a K without an alt I default to being a non-uq DA until proven otherwise. I can be convinced why my ballot generates UQ, but that needs to be explained as a type of alternative.
For AFF's answering K's -
Net Benefits to perms are vital, as are DA's to why the ALT doesn't solve all parts of the case, or separate DA's to the ALT itself.
! Turns would be great. I don't understand why debaters don't just say arguments such as HEG GOOD. Impact turns vs. K's can be devastating. Don't debate on their ground, debate on yours.
Other K Things -
I’ll vote on roll of the ballot claims and framing issues as long as there are impacts and warrants attached to those and reasons why the other side doesn’t’ access them.
Floating Piks, and Counter Perms I'm familiar with, and will vote on, but they need to be at least predictably flagged in the block.
Lastly, I enjoy clash with K debates so if someone reads a Buadrillard AFF and your NEG is to also read Buadrillard, you're probably starting off on the wrong foot in front of me.
-- LD --
Most of what I said above in policy applies to what LD is currently, but I'll add a few specific things unique to LD.
Value/Crit -
Offense to their Value/Crit would be lovely. - Winning the framing is helpful, but more debaters need to impact out why it matters.
Use your contentions as net benefits to your Value/Criterion and DA's to theirs and explain why their FW cant access/solve your impacts. I often find myself just voting on impact calc based on which contention OW's the other because the framing debate isn't articulated enough.
K's/CP's/DA's in LD? -
Sure, why not. I'll evaluate these the same as any other argument (read above in policy for specifics)
For Traditional LDers -- I am willing to vote for FW args on why this isn't allowed in LD as long as you have well warranted impacts/theoretical args, but tend to think these are allowed and you should have answers if they apply to the case. Most of the time your more "Traditional case" still has very well built in answers to these types of arguments too, but often debaters are overthinking it. A traditional case can beat a circuit style case.
Contentions -
I love creative contentions in LD to justify what should or should not be debated, but open to voting for theory arguments as to why said contention is unfair etc.
Theory -
I typically err aff on theory in LD, but can be convinced otherwise.
Read above for more specific Theory in Policy Section.
Speed -
Go for it! Please be somewhat clear.
Random Info - I find myself voting for floating pics a lot in LD rounds.
-- PF --
For PF specifically, I often find myself frustrated in PF rounds by the lack of line by line answers, and proper extension of arguments. When citing evidence you should give a tagline, an author and then read the evidence. Often PF debaters do this in many different nonsensical orders with a lack of evidentiary standards.
Clash is really important and giving impacts that are comparative to the other teams impacts will go a long way in front of me. Make sure and respond to their cases in every speech after the first speeches.
**To see how I evaluate specific arguments such as disads, cps, t, k's etc. the above sections still apply. I believe all debate eventually just morphs into policy over time whether we want them to or not because whenever you give students speech times they will inevitably speak faster and utilize the modern policy style. I'm not necessarily a fan of this either way, but it is what it is. I'll still vote on traditional PF cases against more progressive styles, but need warrants that answer their arguments outside of "that's not allowed"**
I've been coaching speech and debate at SME for 20 years (15 as head coach and 5 as an assistant). I debated open at SME, where I also went to high school.
I tend to evaluate debates from a policy-making paradigm, but I'm open to other frameworks. I'm also open to any arguments as long as adequate analysis is given and the argument's relevance to the debate and issues being discussed is made clear. I'm not extremely familiar with K lit so I'd be cautious to read a K in front of me, but I'm open.
I like to see clash and connecting your arguments to the claims made by your opponents. I want your evidence to be strong in terms of having clear warrants that match your claims, but you need to do the work in terms of pointing out key warrants, as well as scrutinizing your opponent's evidence.
When it comes to analysis, I prefer genuine, conversational delivery and explanations as opposed to spewing pre-written blocks.
I prefer speed at a moderate to quick pace as long as you're clear.
I want clear link stories and strong impact calc! I prefer the debate to funnel down to essential issues.
Please sign-post clearly when transitioning between cards and arguments.
Ethos is important so please be respectful and kind to each other, and present yourselves in a convincing, persuasive manner!